Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
1. Editorial Committee Evaluation
The editorial committee will perform a preliminary evaluation taking into account the relevance of the submitted study, as well as the material aspects and the accordance to the journal’s publishing guidelines, focus, and scope.
In case the work fits the criteria and is approved, it will follow to the next stage. If it is not approved, the text can be: 1) returned to the author for any corrections, accompanied by the necessary clarifications for the work to be submitted to a new evaluation; or 2) rejected, and then returned to the author.
2. Blind peer evaluation
The editors will appoint two peer reviewers with at least a PhD degree to evaluate the submission. If the reviewers diverge on the evaluation, a third peer reviewer will be consulted.
a. Peer reviewers should consider the following aspects: title and subtitle that are coherent with the text; abstract expressing clearly the content of the work; introduction; relevance of the theme; knowledge and development of the subject; content deepening; structure of the work; grammar and orthographic correction; writing clarity; conclusion; pertinence and connection to current affairs of the bibliographical references; adequacy to the guidelines.
b. After the analysis, the peer reviewer will produce an evaluation taking into account: grammatical and stylistic aspects; content aspects regarding ideas and argumentation aspects; aspects regarding concepts, bibliography, text organization, support of the ideas presented.
c. Lastly, the peer reviewer should opt for one of the following evaluations: approved; corrections requested; submit again; rejected.
d. It's prohibited the use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in any stage of the peer-review process. The peer-review must be realized exclusively by humans, with no use of AI tools of any kind in the process. The review must be written by the PhD reviews, without the assistance of AI tools of any kind.
e. It's prohibited that reviewers upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it (images, resumes or paragraphs) into an AI tool. The manuscripts are confidential and uploading it into an AI tool may leak confidential information and breach data privacy rights.
The author will receive an email with the evaluation feedback, as well as other recommendations according to the result.
The works evaluated as Approved, or Approved subject to Corrections which receive recommendations and suggestions, will be forwarded to the authors to be corrected in 15 days. In this case, the deadline to send the text back should be met; it is up to the editors to evaluate if the recommendations were satisfyingly followed or not; if not, the work should be rejected. If the text is not submitted in the platform until the end of the appointed deadline, it will be archived.
If the work is rejected, it is not subject to an appealing. Submissions that are considered inadequate regarding the publishing guidelines will be sent back to the authors.
Regarding the rejected texts, peer reviewers can suggest its submission to other publications, in case the manuscript is more adequate to other fields and does not fit the areas encompassed by dObra[s].
Rejected articles cannot be submitted to dObra[s] a second time.
Submissions to the Interviews, Reviews, and Seams sections will be evaluated only by the Editorial Committee.
